Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Why not direct your question to the Holy Apostles, to whom it seemed good to establish local churches, ruled by separate bishops, but in communion with one another in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in faith?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Yes, it is. You have 3 Patriarchs of Antioch (Melkite, Syriac and Maronite) and two Patriarchs of Alexandria (Melkite and Coptic) and of Jerusalem (Latin and Melkite) so you shoul better have one.

Maybe you'd like to answer.

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don't understand the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

But in the case of EO, they all are greek tradition, and yet they are many

Why not direct your question to the Holy Apostles, to whom it seemed good to establish local churches, ruled by separate bishops, but in communion with one another in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in faith?

The saint apostles had a primus, that primus had the last word on matters of doctrine as we can see it in the Acts of the apostles.

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are also multiple Patriarchs:Patriarch of the East IndiesLatin Patriarch of JerusalemPatriarch of LisbonPatriarch of Venice

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic approach and certainly is a logical one from Rome's perspective. The problem is it just does not follow the ecclesiology of the Church, which was and is a confederation of local churches. This situation does not conflict with the equally important principle that the Church, in other words, the Body of Christ, is one. I suppose the bottom line here is how one defines the word "one." As I said earlier, it seems logical for the word to mean one Patriarch/Pope/Archbishop/Metropolitan (all titles of the primate of a local church). However, that would be in human terms, but the Church is not a purely human institution. Don't forget that the Roman Church herself lived under the Orthodox understanding for 800 years?

Why not direct your question to the Holy Apostles, to whom it seemed good to establish local churches, ruled by separate bishops, but in communion with one another in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in faith?

The saint apostles had a primus, that primus had the last word on matters of doctrine as we can see it in the Acts of the apostles.

I am sorry but you may have a different edition of the Acts. The last word on matters of doctrine, as expressed in my version of the Book of Acts was the Council of Jerusalem, which in a conciliar fashion decided to side with Apostle Paul rather than Apostle Peter. Furthermore, it was the Bishop of Jerusalem and President of the Council, rather than Saint Peter, who announced the decision of this Council.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are also multiple Patriarchs:Patriarch of the East IndiesLatin Patriarch of JerusalemPatriarch of LisbonPatriarch of Venice

In the Latin Church to be patriarch is not a position but a honor title. their jurisdictions are as large as a dioceses.

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are also multiple Patriarchs:Patriarch of the East IndiesLatin Patriarch of JerusalemPatriarch of LisbonPatriarch of Venice

In the Orthodox Church to be Pope is not a position but a honor title. their jurisdictions are as large as a dioceses.

Logged

Quote from: Pope Francis

Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

The many bishops in many cities was the way that Apostles organized local churches, but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

Look here, Inquisitor, we all understand that that is the way that you were thought. No body here is trying to change your beliefs or convert you away from Roman Catholicism. However, you are in the odd position of being the champion for Papal Supremacy in an Eastern Orthodox forum. The question for us would normally be why in the world the Church of Rome believes in the heresy of Papal Supremacy and has chosen to schism from the One True Church? I apologize for having framed the situation in such stark fashion but I must tell you that you are barking the wrong tree here.

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic approach and certainly is a logical one from Rome's perspective. The problem is it just does not follow the ecclesiology of the Church, which was and is a confederation of local churches. This situation does not conflict with the equally important principle that the Church, in other words, the Body of Christ, is one. I suppose the bottom line here is how one defines the word "one." As I said earlier, it seems logical for the word to mean one Patriarch/Pope/Archbishop/Metropolitan (all titles of the primate of a local church). However, that would be in human terms, but the Church is not a purely human institution. Don't forget that the Roman Church herself lived under the Orthodox understanding for 800 years?

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don understant the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are also multiple Patriarchs:Patriarch of the East IndiesLatin Patriarch of JerusalemPatriarch of LisbonPatriarch of Venice

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic approach and certainly is a logical one from Rome's perspective. The problem is it just does not follow the ecclesiology of the Church, which was and is a confederation of local churches. This situation does not conflict with the equally important principle that the Church, in other words, the Body of Christ, is one. I suppose the bottom line here is how one defines the word "one." As I said earlier, it seems logical for the word to mean one Patriarch/Pope/Archbishop/Metropolitan (all titles of the primate of a local church). However, that would be in human terms, but the Church is not a purely human institution. Don't forget that the Roman Church herself lived under the Orthodox understanding for 800 years?

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Then why did Pope Gregory Diologos say that to claim to be Universal Bishop was blasphemy?

And the forerunner of Antichrist.

The story of papal supremacy was invented in the 11th century when the papacy was the victim of a hostile takeover by a cabal of barbarians--a takeover which was, sadly, never reversed. Papal supremacy over the Church and over secular governments was the outgrowth of an entirely new policy, unseen and unheard of before. It was a heretical innovation, later passed off by papal apologists as the way things always were. All those who objected to the innovation were deposed, exiled, anathematized, killed, tricked or forced into submission. Even secular historians agree with this.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Before all those Ecumenism accusations get thrown out I'd just like to say, "Stop Hatin."

Now..

We have so many different Patriarchs for the same reason we have many Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and Priests. Simply put, we have a lot of very diverse Christians within Orthodox who have many convergent cultural, economic, political, psychological, emotional, and spiritual needs. The Church is stratified across several layers of Apostolic Succession to fulfill the Apostolic Mission and dispensation as were Commissioned. Now some will say we have many doctrinal, theological, or argumentative differences, and that so and so or such and such a Patriarch or Bishop is the only ONE, HOLY, APOSTOLIC, and TRUE priest of such and such Orthodox. This is silly divisiveness and sectarianism. Ones should be concerned with only the Orthodoxy of their own respective jurisdictions, and mind their business when it comes to others. We should always assume the best of each other, and proffer the sincere benefit of the doubt.

I would say this, that in time when the Church is healed and reconciled in God's Grace, then we shall function as we did say before the splits in the 400s and the 1000s era, when the bishops served as equals. Realistically, it is only when folks get confused to think that the grace of Perfection applies to the clergy beyond the Mysteries themselves that things get twists into sectarianism. Folks mistake the clergy and the Priesthood as in varying degrees of infallibility and this is where we fall. Only the Mysteries themselves are perfect. We should mutually respect each other so long which includes not necessarily stepping on each others toes, as it was in the distant past.

Stay Blessed,Habte Selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

So we reach the petrine sees, the reason for these sees to be was not that they were the capital of the empire, but PETER. All patriarchates after these three patriarchates come to exist for political reasons, not for apostolic reasons. the apostolic tradition is that patriarchates were Petrine sees, though alexandria never received Peter himself they received Mark, his envoy.

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

For what it is worth, I see that our new friend has failed to address the issue of Eastern Catholic patriarchates as well as their veneration of post-schism Saints of the east. He must be a graduate of the 'Archbishop Ireland School of East/West Intra-Catholic Sui Juris Relations.'

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. {22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. {22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

So you're a protestant?

Logged

Quote from: Pope Francis

Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

For what it is worth, I see that our new friend has failed to address the issue of Eastern Catholic patriarchates as well as their veneration of post-schism Saints of the east. He must be a graduate of the 'Archbishop Ireland School of East/West Intra-Catholic Sui Juris Relations.'

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. {22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. {22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

So you're a protestant?

No, why?

Because you're posting prooftexts.

Logged

Quote from: Pope Francis

Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Yes, it is. You have 3 Patriarchs of Antioch (Melkite, Syriac and Maronite) and two Patriarchs of Alexandria (Melkite and Coptic) and of Jerusalem (Latin and Melkite) so you shoul better have one.

Maybe you'd like to answer.

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don't understand the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

But in the case of EO, they all are greek tradition, and yet they are many

The NT is a Greek Tradition, and so too the Apostles' OT, the Septuagint.

Only one nation in the Church was under the Old Covenant. I see that you Judaizing, and therefore faulting us for bringing all the nations into the Church, as the Lord instructed us.

The Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch (and the Autocephalous Church of Cyprus) predate the Patriarchate of Rome, and the Patriarchate of Alexandria (which has the original Pope) followed soon thereafter "in the beggining." That's the way it was. And is.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. {22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

So you're a protestant?

No, why?

Because you're posting prooftexts.

And? does that imply that we real christians are forbiden to read the bible, to understand the source of dogma?

Why not direct your question to the Holy Apostles, to whom it seemed good to establish local churches, ruled by separate bishops, but in communion with one another in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in faith?

The saint apostles had a primus, that primus had the last word on matters of doctrine as we can see it in the Acts of the apostles.

St. James, the Brother of God Acts 15:19

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So we reach the petrine sees, the reason for these sees to be was not that they were the capital of the empire, but PETER. All patriarchates after these three patriarchates come to exist for political reasons, not for apostolic reasons. the apostolic tradition is that patriarchates were Petrine sees, though alexandria never received Peter himself they received Mark, his envoy.

The only see that could be said to come into existence for "political reasons" would be Constantinople, but even then Asia Minor had long been an important Greek Christian center thanks to St John. The fifth patriarchate existed not due to political events, but entirely spiritual reason- Jerusalem's only claim to Patriarch status at the time it was brought into the Pentarchy was it's status as the birthplace of Christianity.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Yes, it is. You have 3 Patriarchs of Antioch (Melkite, Syriac and Maronite) and two Patriarchs of Alexandria (Melkite and Coptic) and of Jerusalem (Latin and Melkite) so you shoul better have one.

Maybe you'd like to answer.

I think that the existance of many catholic eastern patriarch is due to the fact of their own tradition but as a Latin catholic I don't understand the sectioning of the church, in many patriarchates. mainly because in the beggining it was not that way.

But in the case of EO, they all are greek tradition, and yet they are many

The NT is a Greek Tradition, and so too the Apostles' OT, the Septuagint.

Only one nation in the Church was under the Old Covenant. I see that you Judaizing, and therefore faulting us for bringing all the nations into the Church, as the Lord instructed us.

The Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch (and the Autocephalous Church of Cyprus) predate the Patriarchate of Rome, and the Patriarchate of Alexandria (which has the original Pope) followed soon thereafter "in the beggining." That's the way it was. And is.

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. {22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

So you're a protestant?

No, why?

Because you're posting prooftexts.

And? does that imply that we real christians are forbiden to read the bible, to understand the source of dogma?

Not by pulling proof quotes out of context.

Logged

Quote from: Pope Francis

Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. {22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

Go to Matthew 16:23{16:23} But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God but the things of men!"

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sorry I have to go to work, I will try to answer latter, God Bless You all.

So you weren't working, eh? Proof positive that idle hands are the devil's workshop.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Why did Christ, Who is One, have 12 disciples and send out the 72 Apostles?

Go to Luke 22, 31 -32

{22:31} And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. {22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

So you're a protestant?

No, why?

Because you're posting prooftexts.

And? does that imply that we real christians are forbiden to read the bible, to understand the source of dogma?

You have a history of posting texts you do not understand.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Inquisitor, you raise a GREAT question! I completely agree. We should have ONE Patriarch. Oh, but before we get that all settled, let me just make a quick phone call:

*Ring, Ring; Ring, Ring; Ring, Ring*

Me: "Hello, is this Heaven?"Operator: "Yes, who may I ask is calling?"Me: "James Patrick Rottnek II. I live in Bagdad, Arizona. I was hoping to talk to Jesus for a sec."Operator: "Oh, ok. He has a lot of stuff he'd like to get past your thick skull, but I'm sure he'd answer a question for you. Let me just transfer you."Jesus: "Hello, are you there?"Me: "Hi Jesus, I'm glad you weren't too busy to talk. I have a real problem. You see, I think there ought to be one Patriarch, why do we need all these bishops all over the place? But, I'm sure that if I bring up the point, my priest will say "But Jesus had 12 disciples" so I have a favor."Jesus: "What's that?"Me: "I want you to either let everyone know you only really meant to have one disciple, and it was a mistake to pick the other eleven, or please unselect the last eleven. You do have an "undo" button up there right?"

In all seriousness, if we were meant to have just one Bishop, why did Jesus have twelve disciples? And why did the Disciples replace Judas?

Besides, instead of a substitute for Christ, here on earth, we have Christ leading us from heaven, much as a President doesn't go out to the front lines of a war zone, but rather runs the war from the capital city. That's where Jesus is - the capital of His Kingdom.

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

Then why did Pope Gregory Diologos say that to claim to be Universal Bishop was blasphemy?

And the forerunner of Antichrist.

The story of papal supremacy was invented in the 11th century when the papacy was the victim of a hostile takeover by a cabal of barbarians--a takeover which was, sadly, never reversed. Papal supremacy over the Church and over secular governments was the outgrowth of an entirely new policy, unseen and unheard of before. It was a heretical innovation, later passed off by papal apologists as the way things always were. All those who objected to the innovation were deposed, exiled, anathematized, killed, tricked or forced into submission. Even secular historians agree with this.

I love the way you say "even" as if secular historians don't have an agenda and a reason to discredit the Catholic Church.

Why not direct your question to the Holy Apostles, to whom it seemed good to establish local churches, ruled by separate bishops, but in communion with one another in the Eucharist, in prayer, and in faith?

The saint apostles had a primus, that primus had the last word on matters of doctrine as we can see it in the Acts of the apostles.

Yeah, Saint Peter totally had the last word on the circumcision matter.

The many bishops in many cities was the way that Apostles organized local churches, but in the case of E.O. the patriarch is not a local bishop of a city, but is the head of a nationalistic church.

The jurisdiction of certain bishops extended far beyond simply their city quite quickly, certainly within the early history of the "Catholic Church". First the city bishops gained authority over the country bishops, then the metropolitan bishops gained authority over the city bishops, and then the diocesan bishops gained authority over the metropolitan bishops; the completion of this process was already indicated in a canon of the First Council of Constantinople in 381.

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic approach and certainly is a logical one from Rome's perspective. The problem is it just does not follow the ecclesiology of the Church, which was and is a confederation of local churches. This situation does not conflict with the equally important principle that the Church, in other words, the Body of Christ, is one. I suppose the bottom line here is how one defines the word "one." As I said earlier, it seems logical for the word to mean one Patriarch/Pope/Archbishop/Metropolitan (all titles of the primate of a local church). However, that would be in human terms, but the Church is not a purely human institution. Don't forget that the Roman Church herself lived under the Orthodox understanding for 800 years?

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

This conversation is pointless if all you're going to do is state the bare Romanist teaching.

Yes, that is the Roman Catholic approach and certainly is a logical one from Rome's perspective. The problem is it just does not follow the ecclesiology of the Church, which was and is a confederation of local churches. This situation does not conflict with the equally important principle that the Church, in other words, the Body of Christ, is one. I suppose the bottom line here is how one defines the word "one." As I said earlier, it seems logical for the word to mean one Patriarch/Pope/Archbishop/Metropolitan (all titles of the primate of a local church). However, that would be in human terms, but the Church is not a purely human institution. Don't forget that the Roman Church herself lived under the Orthodox understanding for 800 years?

No, The current Orthodox understanding was introduced years latter, before there only were petrine sees headed by Rome.

This conversation is pointless if all you're going to do is state the bare Romanist teaching.

Well said, and I am glad to see that for the most part we Orthodox are going beyond the barest of Orthodox understanding of this complicated and long-festering issue in this thread. Fortunately, many modern theologians and scholars of the western church are attempting to cut through the gloss of history to better understand the role and true function of the first millenium's 'primus inter pares'.